MC0-10253

MC0-10253

The RAD allowed the appeals of the Associate Appellant and Minor Appellant and substituted its own decision finding them to be Convention refugees because documentary and testimonial evidence established a well‑founded fear of persecution, a nexus to imputed political opinion, and absence of state protection; the Principal Appellant's appeal was allowed in part and remitted to the RPD for redetermination because the RPD failed to make adequate factual findings, ignored material evidence raising suspicion that the PA is associated with violent insurgents, and failed to notify the Minister under RPD Rules subrule 26(1).

Citation
MC0-10253
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (age 4): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: AA and MA allowed and declared Convention refugees; PA's appeal allowed and remitted to the RPD for redetermination; RPD directed to notify the Minister under subrule 26(1).
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Exclusion (article 1 F), State Protection, Sexual Violence, Imputed Political Opinion, Remand to Tribunal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Exclusion (article 1 F) State Protection Sexual Violence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (age 4)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have a well‑founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by treating an internal flight alternative as determinative without adequate findings of fact
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeals of the Associate Appellant and Minor Appellant and substituted its own decision finding them to be Convention refugees because documentary and testimonial evidence established a well‑founded fear of persecution, a nexus to imputed political opinion, and absence of state protection; the Principal Appellant's appeal was allowed in part and remitted to the RPD for redetermination because the RPD failed to make adequate factual findings, ignored material evidence raising suspicion that the PA is associated with violent insurgents, and failed to notify the Minister under RPD Rules subrule 26(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: AA and MA allowed and declared Convention refugees; PA's appeal allowed and remitted to the RPD for redetermination; RPD directed to notify the Minister under subrule 26(1).

Orders

  • Associate Appellant and Minor Appellant declared Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA
  • Principal Appellant's appeal remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) of the IRPA